Why 8 Out of 9 Californians Don't Buy Earthquake Insurance
August 27, 2014 —
Alyssa Abkowitz – BloombergEarly estimates suggest the economic losses from Sunday’s 6.0-magnitude earthquake in Northern California, the largest quake to hit the Golden State in 25 years, could hit $1 billion. When it comes to rebuilding, much of the cost will come out of people’s own pockets.
The percentage of homeowners with earthquake insurance in California and across the U.S. has declined, despite rising estimates of the risk of an earthquake. A survey by the Insurance Information Institute, a nonprofit that’s funded by the insurance industry, found that 7 percent of U.S. homeowners have earthquake insurance, down from 13 percent just two years ago. In the West, ground zero for U.S. quakes, 10 percent of homeowners have coverage, down from 22 percent a year ago; in California, about 12 percent do, according to the California Earthquake Authority.
But as fewer people opt for earthquake insurance, the government is upping its assessment of the risk of a sizable shake. Last month, the U.S. Geological Survey updated its seismic hazard maps for the first time since 2008. The update showed an increased earthquake risk for almost half the country. Parts of Washington, Oregon, Oklahoma, and Tennessee, among others, moved into the top two hazard zones. The San Francisco Bay area, for example, shows a 63 percent chance of one or more major earthquakes before 2036, according to the agency.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Alyssa Abkowitz, Bloomberg
Seller Cannot Compel Arbitration for Its Role in Construction Defect Case<
March 01, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe buyer of a leaky home in Venice, California cannot be compelled to arbitration with the seller in a construction defect lawsuit, according to a decision in Lindemann v. Hume, which was heard in the California Court of Appeals. Lindemann was the trustee of the Schlei Trust which bought the home and then sued the seller and the builder for construction defects.
The initial owner was the Hancock Park Trust, a real estate trust for Nicholas Cage. Richard Hume was the trustee. In 2002, Cage agreed to buy the home which was being built by the Lee Group. Cage transferred the agreement to the Hancock Park Trust. Hancock had Richard Nazarin, a general contractor, conduct a pre-closing walk through. They also engaged an inspector. Before escrow closed, the Lee Group agreed to provide a ten-year warranty “to remedy and repair any and all damage resulting from water infiltration, intrusion, or flooding due to the fact that the door on the second and third floors of the residence at the Property were not originally installed at least one-half inch (1/2”) to one inch (1”) above the adjacent outside patio tile/floor on each of the second and third floors.”
Cage moved in and experienced water intrusion and flooding. The Lee Group was unable to fix the problems. Hume listed the home for sale. The Kamienowiczs went as far as escrow before backing out of the purchase over concerns about water, after the seller’s agent disclosed “a problem with the drainage system that is currently being addressed by the Lee Group.”
The house was subsequently bought by the Schlei Trust. The purchase agreement included an arbitration clause which included an agreement that “any dispute or claim in Law or equity arising between them out of this Agreement or any resulting transaction, which is not settled through mediation, shall be decided by neutral, binding arbitration.” The warranty the Lee Group had given to Hancock was transferred to the Schlei trust and Mr. Schlei moved into the home in May 2003.
Lindemann enquired as to whether the work done would prevent future flooding. Nazarin sent Schlei a letter that said that measures had been taken “to prevent that situation from recurring.” In February, 2004, there was flooding and water intrusion. Lindemann filed a lawsuit against the Lee Group and then added the Hancock Park defendants.
The Hancock Park defendants invoked the arbitration clause, arguing that Lindemann’s claims “were only tangentially related to her construction defect causes of action against the Lee Group.” On June 9, 2010, the trial court rejected this claim, ruling that there was a possibility of conflicting rulings on common issues of law. “With respect to both the developer defendants and the seller defendants, the threshold issue is whether there was a problem with the construction of the property in the first instance. If there was no problem with the construction of the property, then there was nothing to fail to disclose.” Later in the ruling, the trial court noted that “the jury could find there was no construction defect on the property, while the arbitration finds there was a construction defect, the sellers knew about it, and the sellers failed to disclose it.” The appeals court noted that while Hancock Park had disclosed the drainage problems to the Kamienowiczs, no such disclosure was made to Sclei.
The appeals court described Hancock Park’s argument that there is no risk of inconsistent rulings as “without merit.” The appeals court said that the issue “is not whether inconsistent rulings are inevitable but whether they are possible if arbitration is ordered.” Further, the court noted that “the Hancock Park defendants and the Lee Group have filed cross-complaints for indemnification against each other, further increasing the risk of inconsistent rulings.”
The court found for Lindemann, awarding her costs.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
CA Supreme Court Rejects Proposed Exceptions to Interim Adverse Judgment Rule Defense to Malicious Prosecution Action
August 24, 2017 —
David W. Evans & Stephen J. Squillario – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Parrish v. Latham & Watkins (No. S228277 - August 10, 2017) (“Parrish”), the California Supreme Court examined the “interim adverse judgment rule” in a different context than previous decisions on the subject. The rule provides that if an earlier action succeeds after a hearing on the merits, this success establishes the existence of probable cause and precludes a subsequent malicious prosecution action. In a typical case applying the rule, a plaintiff in the underlying action defeats the defendant’s motion for summary judgment but then loses the case at trial leading to a subsequent malicious prosecution claim. In Parrish, the Court addressed whether the rule applies when the trial court had denied the defendant’s summary judgment motion but concluded after the defense prevailed at a bench trial that the suit had been brought in “bad faith” due to a lack of evidentiary support.
Reprinted courtesy of
David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com
Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Fact of Settlement Communications in Underlying Lawsuits is Not Ground for Anti-SLAPP Motion in Subsequent Bad Faith Lawsuit
August 24, 2020 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Trilogy Plumbing, Inc. v. Navigators Specialty Ins. Co. (No. G057796, filed 5/27/20, ord. pub. 6/18/20), a California appeals court ruled that an insurance bad faith lawsuit alleging a variety of claim handling misconduct in defending the insured was not subject to an insurer’s special Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) motion to strike because, while the alleged acts were generally connected to litigation, they did not include any written or oral statement or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a judicial body and, therefore, did not constitute protected activity under California’s anti-SLAPP statute.
In Trilogy Plumbing, the policyholder was sued in 33 different construction defect lawsuits, some of which Navigators defended, and others which were denied or had the defense withdrawn. The Navigators’ policies were subject to a $5,000 deductible, and Trilogy alleged that Navigators breached the contracts by “demanding deductible reimbursement amounts greater than the policies’ $5,000 stated deductible, and by seeking reimbursement of ordinary defense fees and expenses as if they were subject to deductible reimbursement,” “claiming a right to seek reimbursement from Trilogy for defense fees and expenses Navigators paid for the benefit of third-party additional insureds,” “providing conflicted defense counsel who took instructions only from Navigators without disclosing conflicts of interest,” “failing to reasonably settle cases and by withdrawing [the] defense as a strategic means of trying to force Trilogy to fund its own settlements,” “misrepresenting its deductible provisions,” “refusing to account for deductible amounts it charges and collects,” and others.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Litigation Roundup: “Stuck on You”
March 04, 2024 —
Daniel Lund III - LexologyA “contract of adhesion” is referred to as a standard form contract – usually preprinted – “prepared by a party of superior bargaining power for adherence or rejection of the weaker party.” Yet, it is not the nature of the contract alone which determines its enforceability, but, instead, “whether a party truly consented to all of the printed terms.”
A Louisiana plaintiff fighting a forum selection clause in a construction contract sought to have the clause nullified, urging that the clause was “buried” in the agreement and in small font, arguing also that the contractor had “superior bargaining position at the time of entering into the contract… because [plaintiff] needed to repair the hurricane damage” to his home as soon as possible.
In response, the contractor urged that the contract was not executed under rush conditions, and that, in any event, the contract was only two pages long – and the forum selection clause was not hidden and was in the same font as all of the other provisions in the contract.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel Lund III, PhelpsMr. Lund may be contacted at
daniel.lund@phelps.com
Mitigating FCRA Risk Through Insurance
November 30, 2020 —
Sergio F. Oehninger, Geoffrey B. Fehling & Matt Revis - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogAs reported in a recent Hunton Andrews Kurth client alert, Mitigating FCRA Risks in the COVID-19 World (Oct. 23, 2020), consumer litigation claims related to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) doubled in the years leading up to the COVID-19 pandemic. After a slight decrease in FCRA filings due to court closures and other COVID-19 restrictions, claims will likely resume their previous upward trajectory. In fact, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has already seen an uptick in consumer complaints, many of which mention COVID-19 specific keywords.
Given the anticipated rise in FCRA complaints, the alert highlights the need for financial institutions and financial services companies to develop FCRA-compliant policies and procedures, including training on those policies and procedures, to mitigate the risk of FCRA-related enforcement actions and litigation claims, particularly in light of the regulatory changes relating to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Another important risk mitigation tool to consider is insurance, which can offer protection when even the most robust preventative measures fail to prevent an FCRA claim. Coverage for FCRA-related claims—often from directors’ and officers’ (D&O) or errors and omissions (E&O) policies—might be broader than one would initially expect. Policies may cover defense costs involving legal fees, as well as indemnification for damages.
Reprinted courtesy of
Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews Kurth,
Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Matt Revis, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
CRH to Buy Building-Products Firm Laurence for $1.3 Billion
September 03, 2015 —
Phil Serafino & Andrew Marc Noel – BloombergCRH Plc agreed to buy Los Angeles-based C.R. Laurence Co. for $1.3 billion to expand in products used in window installation as U.S. construction markets stabilize.
C.R. Laurence, which is owned by the Friese family, makes hardware and products used in the installation of architectural glass and generated pretax profit of $51 million in 2014, Dublin-based CRH said in a statement Thursday.
CRH shares rose 4.9 percent to 25.79 euros as of 8:56 a.m. in Dublin, giving the company a market value of 21.2 billion euros ($24 billion).
The purchase is timed with a recovery in U.S. construction markets, driven by demand for industrial buildings. CRH reported a "promising backlog" of business at its Americas Materials division in May. Combining the companies will generate $40 million a year in savings from 2017, it said.
Reprinted courtesy of
Phil Serafino, Bloomberg and
Andrew Marc Noel, Bloomberg Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Approaches to Managing Job Site Inventory
January 04, 2018 —
Jessica Stark - Construction InformerOriginally Published by CDJ on August 30, 2017
There is no question that organization on the job site can mean the difference between efficient performance and costly errors. A simple mistake can cost a company thousands, which is why details are carefully articulated and supervisors become better scrutinizers than magazine editors. But for some reason, many companies don’t consider managing job site inventory under this same attentive category, or perhaps they don’t know about the technology available to help them do it.
For contractors, keeping track of every piece of material and equipment lowers losses and keeps crews busy. This is especially true for contractors in the trades who often have specialized equipment in inventory such as power supplies, HVAC “smart energy” components or inspection equipment. Once everything is accounted for, the possibility of loss is decreased and there’s a chance to evaluate the use of all materials and equipment. This can show the efficiency of allotted resources. Is there enough equipment on the site to get tasks completed? Is there a need for more? Less? Having excess equipment can sometimes prepare a crew for problem scenarios. But it can also mean the construction company is overpaying for unneeded resources. However, the only way to know is by effectively managing job site inventory. That includes all equipment and materials
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jessica Stark, Construction Informer
